Trapdoor Carbine and SAA Pistol

[Diane Merkel]

I received the following questions from a website visitor. If you can answer any or all of his questions, please reply to this post. Thank you in advance!

"I'm trying to put together some accoutrements to go with a reproduction Trapdoor carbine and SAA pistol that I recently acquired, and want them to reflect what was used at the LBH.

"First of all, what kind of holster was the SAA pistol carried in? Was it the Civil War holster, or the newer models that came on line in the 1870's. Was the carbine sling the same type used by the Union in the Civil War, or was it a different pattern? Also, how was ammo carried for both the carbine and pistol--was it carried in prairie belts, or in McKeever boxes or Dyer pouches?"

[Jimbo]

Two excellent sources of information on this topic are 2 books ( if they are still available or in print; if not try Amazon.com ) thet are as follows: "Apache Wars, an Illustrated Battle History by E. Lisle Reedstrom pub. by Sterling Pulishing Co. New York and "The United States Cavalry, An Illustrated History" by Gregory J. W. Urwin, pub. by Blandford Press, Poole, Dorset. These books are replete with text, illustrations, paintings & drawings that describe and illustrate very accurately & thoroughly, the uniforms, weapons & gear used by the U.S. Cavalry during all different periods of America's wars throughout our history including the indian wars and should answer all of his questions; if not I may be able to answer some of them. 'Hope this helps.....

[Jimbo]

The name of a company that advertises historically accurate LBH Battle reinactment gear is: "Western Guns" website: www.westernarms.com

[Ephriam Dickson]

For detailed drawings and descriptions of this period, I would recommend Randy Steffen, The Horse Soldier, Vol. 2, Thr Frontier, The Mexican War, the Civil War, the Indian Wars, 1851-1880, available through University of Oklahoma Press.

Also helpful is: Douglas C. McChristian, The U.S. Army in the West, 1870-1880: Uniforms, Weapons and Equipment (also University of Oklahoma Press).

John P. Langellier, More Army Blue: The Uniform of Uncle Sam's Regulars 1874-1887. Published by Schiffer Military History.

And for a good readable account: James S. Hutchins, Boots and Saddles at the Little Bighorn: Weapons, Dress, Equipment, Horses and Flags of General Custer's Seventh U.S. Cavalry in 1876. (out of print; try Bookfinder.com)

[guidon7]

I believe that Union Cavalry during the Civil War carried Sharps or Spencer carbines. The 7th Cavalry were armed with 1873 Springfield (Trapdoor) Carbines, cal. 45-70. These bring a good price on today's market. After the Trapdoor was replaced (by the Krag-Jorgensen?) surplus Trapdoors were often given away by merchants to customers when they made a sale from their store. I also heard that boxes upon boxes of Trapdoors were sunk in New York's East River to dispose of them. (Eat your hearts out, would-be collectors!)

[Lawtonka]

Here is one good resource in acquiring authentic articles for re-enacting IW period.

www.ushist.com/wardrobe/hats_indian-wars.htm

[markland]

This seems an appropriate place.

While searching for some other information yesterday in the Ft. Sanders, Wyoming Post Returns, I started noticing, beginning with the December, 1873 return, this tantalizing statement in the record of events: "Target practice held in compliance with existing orders." I checked every return and that sentence or a close variation was used on every monthly return through July, 1876. Previous to the 12/1873 return there had only been casual reference to target practice after 1866-67 such as, "Target practice held as weather permitted."

I then went back through the records of correspondence received at Ft. Sanders to see if I could find the specidic order and whether it was a departmental order or an army-wide one. Unfortunately, I only found two references to target practice in the brief description of the correspondence received. These were Dept. of the Platte General Order 8, issued June 9, 1873; and Dept. of the Platte General Order 13 issued October 11, 1873. Based upon the time frames I would suggest that the latter is the more likely to have the pertinent information.

Since my curiousity was up, I went to look at the post returns of a fort that had been in the Dept. of the Dakotas, Ft. Sully. Got two good results, one for the original search and one for the family genealogy. Seems like one Second Lieutenant Mathew Markland, 1st Infantry, was the Post Adjutant at Sully in 1875. On the October, 1875 return, I ran into this under the purport of correspondence received: A.G.O. 83, issued September 23, 1875, "Fifteen rounds of Ammunition to be allowed Cavalry for target practice."

So, while the above doesn't answer if the 7th actually had target practice, we now know that there was authorization to shoot rounds, perhaps not a lot, but still, 15 per trooper per month is better than nothing.

I will try to obtain those orders but didn't have any luck hunting them down yesterday.

Best of wishes,

Billy

[markland]

Those folks at CARL are wonderful!

Here is the General Order referenced in my last post.

"War Department
Adjutant General's Office
Washington, September 23, 1875

General Orders No. 83

General Orders 103, from this office, under date of August 5, 1874, is so far amended as to allow the Cavalry service fifteen (15) rounds instead of ten (10) of ball ammunition per month for target practice, this number to be divided between the carbine and revolver at the discretion of the commanding officer. No greater allowance can be authorized on account of the insufficiency of the appropriations for the manufacture of metallic ammunition.

By Order of the Secretary of War:

E. D. Townsend
Adjutant General"

[Diane Merkel]

George Custer's field glasses w/ provenance and an Indian-used Trapdoor carbine




GEN. GEORGE ARMSTRONG CUSTER'S PERSONAL TRUNK

These and other incredible items are up for auction October 3-6. Click "Selected Highlights" right above the first photos at www.juliaauctions.com/ or, if you want to read the description for each Custer-related item, click the link to Session 4, Lots 4001-4616. Enjoy!

[El Crab]

Is that a trapdoor from the Custer battle?

And are those Custer's fieldglasses or DeRudio's?

[Diane Merkel]

I don't believe they are claiming the trapdoor was at LBH.

Below is the description and provenance of the field glasses. There is no mention of DeRudio.

GEN. GEO. ARMSTRONG CUSTER’S FIELD GLASSES FROM THE MASSACRE AT LITTLE BIGHORN WITH DOCUMENTED PROVENANCE. Field glasses have brass bodies (once leather covered) made by "Lemaire Paris France" and closed stand 6-1/2" tall complete with sunshields. CONDITION: Good. Leather covering of the binocular bodies has been lost. Brass bodies are oxidized. Left eyepiece lens is fractured and the right viewing lens is scratched and discolored. There is a scratch nearly across the center of the entire lens. Accompanying provenance goes backwards thusly: Consignor from Franklin David Wilson Jr. (1970’s) from Elsie Louise Wilson nee Edmunds (c. 1915) from Alfred Edmunds purchased from William Sharp (Sergeant Troop G 7th Cav. USA) (1897) from G. H Rathgeber (Sergeant Troop G 7th Cav. USA) from E. Morton (Saddler, Troop G 7th Cav. USA) from C.H. Smith (Pvt. 7th Cav. USA) (who recovered these field glasses from a dead Indian after the battle of Wounded Knee December 29, 1890). Copies of the last will and testament for Elsie Wilson nee Edmunds, her marriage certificate to Franklin David Wilson, a 6-pg handwritten letter from Edward Edmunds (Cook, Troop G 7th Cav. USA) to his brother Charles Edmunds dated Fort Riley, Kansas, September 22, 1889, along with a bill of sale for the field glasses from William Sharp to Alfred Edmunds dated March 6, 1897 with a long handwritten 1-pg description of the field glasses including a physical description, which matches those presented here, the bill of sale states in part "What is positively known concerning these glasses is as follows: After the battle at Wounded Knee Creek, S.D., Dec 29, 1890, between Big Foot’s band of the hostile Sioux Indians and two Battalions of the 7th Cav., U.S.A., several of the enlisted men that participated in the fight went over the battlefield in search of relics. Pvt. C. A. Smith, Troop "G", 7th Cav., U.S.A., found these glasses on the dead body of an Indian that was killed in the fight and afterwards burned to a crisp at the place he fell by the Tepee which the Indian had used as shelter being set on fire by a shell. While we remained on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, considerable inquiry was made concerning these glasses. The friendly Indians claimed that Big Foot’s band, whom we exterminated at Wounded Knee, was one of the hostile tribes that participated in the Custer Massacre and that the Indian spoken of as being burned obtained possession of these glasses on the battlefield where the massacre occurred. Nearly all of the officers of the 7th U.S. Cav. have inspected these glasses and expressed themselves as being convinced that they were the actual glasses used by Gen. Custer in the campaign in which he and his gallant troopers were massacred. Pvt. C. Smith sold these glasses to E. Morton, Saddles Troop "G". Saddles Morton then sold them to Sgt (?) Rathgebar, Sergeant Troop "G", and Rathgebar afterwards sold them to wm. Sharp, Sergeant, Troop "G", 7th Cav. Any of the above persons can identify these glasses and will vouch for the above statement". A wonderful opportunity to acquire a pr of battlefield recovered field glasses with unmistakable provenance to the Battle of Wounded Knee and extremely strong attribution to the Custer Massacre and Gen. George A. Custer, all documented in testimony and writing within a decade or so, following the 1876 massacre. 4-55300 CW106 (45,000-55,000)

[El Crab]

Yup, saw the same description on eBay. The only problem is its well known that Custer "borrowed" DeRudio's fieldglasses, which were Austrian. Sure, those could be the glasses, but I'd be wary of anything labeled as Custer's without proof.

Of course, if they could be linked to DeRudio...

[markland]

I had this thought while reading An Obituary For Major Reno. During the Reno Hill scenes, the author depicts Reno as recognizing the "distinctive" sound of the .45-55 from Custer's fallen. With all the talk about that weapon's extractor problems and the tearing of the head from the cartridge body I began wondering whether post-battle, if on 6/26-6/27 or at any other subsequent time, mangled .45-55 cartridges or jammed Springfields were found in the Indian's lines surrounding Reno Hill.

It seems to reason that if the problem was as prevalent as some would suggest, the Indians with their new carbines and plenty of ammunition and bountiful targets would have experienced it to a large degree. During the archaeological digs, was any work ever done on the hills bordering Reno Hill?

Just an idle thought but observations would be welcome.

Best of wishes,

Billy

[elisabeth]

Interesting thought, Billy. And there's also the equipment dump in that area still waiting to be discovered; any jammed or useless carbines might have been dumped along with the rest of the stuff?

Going back to your earlier posts about target practice, I was just re-reading tihis:

www.rootsweb.com/~nalakota/wotw/military/tacticalstudy_wotw033034.htm

It's Col. T. M. Coughlan's Tactical Study of LBH, from The Cavalry Jouirnal, Jan-Feb 1934, and reprinted in Winners of the West March 26 1934. Many interesting points, some of them controversial. He finishes by listing contributory factors attributable to higher authority, and his final para states:

"Lack of target practice. There had been no systematic instruction. General Schuyler told me that Crook first instituted target practice in the Army after the bitter experience of the battles of the Rosebud and the Little Big Horn."

I believe we've had that from elsewhere as well, but always nice to have a further source ...

[crzhrs]

Elisabeth:

Very interesting site regarding Coughlan's thoughts on the battle. Apparently, he blames Custer for the LBH disaster, no ifs, ands, or buts . .

It's very damning "planless battle . . . badly fought . . ." leaves no doubt to the military's performance at the LBH.